Pujols has a decent case that he deserved the awatrd, but the argumment has nothing to do with the respective records of the Cards or Phils. A player’s value is determined by his own performance, not by the performance of his team. Also, fwiw, the Phillies had a better record than the Cards, so the carping rings especially hollow.
And, anyway, if Jeets isn’t carping, Pujols, who has a trophy and achieved the ultimate team goal this year, should certainly be a bit more sportsmanlike.

YFNovember 30, 2006, 8:56 am

A player’s value is determined by his own performance, not by the performance of his team.
This is simply not true, no matter what you personally believe. The fact is that the voters have always (and always will) factor in a team’s performance when voting for the award. Sometimes this impacts who wins, sometimes not. Whether you like it or not, “value” as ambiguously defined by this award and as voted by the writers is not always about personal performance in isolation. This is not an award based on sabermetrics.
YF poo-poos instant replay reviews, as it removes the humanity of some of the game; human error is part of the ebb and flow of sports, he would argue. He then proceeds to dump on the voters when, with no specific rules in place, they don’t follow his own definition of this award. I find that dubious.

SFNovember 30, 2006, 10:18 am

“A player’s value is determined by his own performance, not by the performance of his team.”
That would be the Most Outstanding Player. Value, for me, implies relativity to one’s team. If it were an individual sport it would be another story.
But I really wish MLB would define its awards and open voting up to 21st century media as well.

lpNovember 30, 2006, 12:11 pm

sf is right on his point that: “…The fact is that the voters have always (and always will) factor in a team’s performance when voting for the award….” …that’s part of what cost jeter the award this year, ironically though, his team actually won a division, but he was penalized because the players on his team are TOO good…probably the weakest excuse i’ve ever heard…but, it had to be rationalized somehow i guess…

dcNovember 30, 2006, 1:56 pm

Since the voting is conducted before the post-season, I guess my following suggestion isn’t feasible, but hey, Albert, you’re right. Why stop with the playoffs? Shouldn’t that player have to take their team to the pennant? The series? A player who does that is obviously that much more valuable. Oh wait! You did that! You must be the most valuable, forget what role your team played in it, or that you went 3-15 in the series, and Eckstein had to carry your prodigious bulk.
Pujols’ assertion is arbitrary and is in particularly bad taste. He already has a pile of accolades and a ring, but no, it’s not enough for him. As a player, he is without compare, and he’s making great strides as a greedy whiner.
YF already raised the particulary interesting point that the Phillies had a better record than the hapless Cardinals. Not only the Phillies, but a total of TWELVE teams had a better regular season record than STL.
Back in October, Nick offered some funny reasons to root for the Cards over Detroit. From now on should such an AL vs. STL choice come up in the future, at least as long as Pujols is playing for them, my choice just got easy.

attackgerbilNovember 30, 2006, 2:12 pm

SF: We’ve been down this road. Value, on the field, is something we can measure with various metrics, and if you want to throw in a few extra merits for “intangibles” like leadership or clutchness or godliness, fine, but the guy should only be given credit for being on the winning team to the extent that he helps the team be a winner, and not merely because he has excellent teammates, a good manager, or plays in a crap division. But you can interpret this as you wish.
The instant replay debate isn’t relevant here. It’s about how we think about an award, after the season. It has no bearing on the activity on the field.

YFNovember 30, 2006, 2:26 pm

I find this rant odd, as well, he has nothing to gain, and plenty to lose..
I feel for him for being the bridesmaid (first to Bonds for a few years, and now Howard) but this is probably not the right way to go about it..

LarNovember 30, 2006, 3:13 pm

I simply don’t understand how “most outstanding player” or rather “best player” does not equal “most valueable player.” The best player in the league is the most valueable player in the league. How could he not be?
Howard over Pujols is a real head-scratcher because not only is Pujols a superior player, he was just as crucial to his team, if not more. I hate the “take this guy of this team and what happens?” logic, personally, as I feel it is absurd: it doesn’t say much about the player – it says something about the TEAM. Yet the MVP is an individual award. But the fact is that many writers justified their choice of Howard by saying something along the lines of “well, w/o Howard the Phillies don’t finish only 2 games out.” HUH? Without Pujols the Cards don’t make the playoffs.
The Cards were a flawed team and w/o Albert they weren’t going anyway. With him, they made the playoffs and somehow won the WS.
The Phillies were also a flawed team that missed the playoffs.
The As were a flawed team that made the playoffs, and this got Frank Thomas enough votes to finish FOURTH in the AL vote. FOURTH!!
So I take it that the logic is that a player is only valueable if he plays for a team just flawed enough but also just good enough to teeter on the border between “playoff team” and “also-ran.” Players on really good teams need not apply, and players on bad teams (Hafner, Sizemore, to name 2) can take a hike.
It’s absurd. Most valueable = best. Or should.